[MRG] update redirect links to python3

[adityaa30]

Fixes #4444

[Gallaecio]

I’ve not reviewed the whole changeset, but I think my 2 last comments may help you figure out how to use InterSphinx in some other cases where you simply updated the URL.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #4445 into master will decrease coverage by 0.18%.
The diff coverage is n/a.

@@            Coverage Diff            @@
##           master   #4445      +/-   ##
=========================================
- Coverage   84.79%   84.6%   -0.19%     
=========================================
  Files         164     164              
  Lines        9883    9889       +6     
  Branches     1469    1469              
=========================================
- Hits         8380    8367      -13     
- Misses       1248    1266      +18     
- Partials      255     256       +1

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
scrapy/item.py	98.57% <ø> (ø)	⬆️
scrapy/robotstxt.py	75.3% <0%> (-22.23%)	⬇️
scrapy/utils/trackref.py	82.85% <0%> (-2.86%)	⬇️
scrapy/crawler.py	89.32% <0%> (+0.37%)	⬆️

[adityaa30]

@Gallaecio Thanks a lot for you review. I have done the requested changes and also refactored the links following the pattern https://docs.python.org/3/* with their respective intersphinx python inventory's target.

[Gallaecio]

Mind that the python: prefix is only necessary for disambiguation, so it should not be necessary in most cases. Feel free to leave it, it does not hurt, but know that it is not needed.

[Gallaecio]

Nice, I had no idea we could avoid mod that way!

There is only a couple of additional cases to fix, but I think that’s it 🙂

On a different topic: once your code is reviewed once, further updates are better done without force-pushing, and instead using regular merges and such, so that we can review the changes to your previous changes, instead of having to review the whole patch again just in case. We can squash your commits when we merge into master, so keeping a clean commit history should not be that much of a problem.

[adityaa30]

On a different topic: once your code is reviewed once, further updates are better done without force-pushing, and instead using regular merges and such, so that we can review the changes to your previous changes, instead of having to review the whole patch again just in case. We can squash your commits when we merge into master, so keeping a clean commit history should not be that much of a problem.

@Gallaecio Sure. Thanks a lot for mentioning and your review!
I have done the requested changes.

[kmike]

Nice cleanup!